1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), New Delhi, seeking copy of complaint, enquiry report and final action taken against Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. S. Talluri, Mr. P. Siva Prasad, Mr. C. Ravindernath, Mr. V. Srinivasan and Mr. V.S. Prabhakara Gupta, for professional misconduct in the Satyam case.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has deliberately denied him the information sought under section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act stating that the matter is pending before various judicial forums. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Commission and Delhi High Court that mere pendency of proceedings is no ground for denying the information sought and that the onus is on the PIO that the disclosure of information would, in fact, impede the process of investigation or prosecution under Section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act. He, therefore, requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him, free of cost, and to take necessary action against the CPIO.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Harsh Satpal Malhotra attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Secretary and CPIO and Ms. Seema Gerotra, Joint Director and FAA, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi, was present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO had incorrectly denied the information sought under Section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act as merely because the matter is sub-judice is no ground for denial of information.

5. The respondent submitted that the matter is sub-judice before various High Courts and hence the information sought was denied as its disclosure would impede the proceedings in the High Court. Hence, the information sought was denied to him under Section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in similar cases had directed non-disclosure of the names of the members of the Institute until the members have been found guilty.

6. In the context of the order of the Delhi High Court referred to in para 5 above, the appellant stated that the Institute had, itself, published the names of the officials, who had been found guilty by its Disciplinary Committee, on its website.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, agrees with the appellant that merely because a matter is sub-judice the information cannot be withheld. In this context, the Commission notes that the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009, dated 23.09.2010, had held:

“5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”

8. Moreover, as per Section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act, protection is only apropos the information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Commission, however, observes that the appellant has sought the copies of complaints, the inquiry report and the final action taken against certain specific members of ICAI for their professional misconduct in the Satyam case. The Commission further observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs. CIC and others) has held that

“13. ……The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual……….”